Silly TLS Auth lobbying

[RJ Atkinson <rja at extremenetworks.com>]

Some important things that the FSF folks seem NOT to understand,
and frankly seem to aggressively NOT want to understand, are:

- Many RFCs are *not* on the IETF standards track.

- Any "Experimental RFC" is *not* on the IETF standards track.
  So there is no "endorsement" by IETF in publishing such.

- The IETF has published real standards-track documents that
  required patented technology and were known to have
  *difficult* license terms on the publication date (think
  cryptographic algorithms and scan backwards in rfc-index.txt).

- There is no history of IETF requiring technology to be freely
  available (for either common definition of free).


I support the idea that virtually any document ought to be able
to be published as an Informational RFC or Experimental RFC.
Technology that is useful will be adopted if economically sensible,
whether in an RFC or not, whether made a formal standard or not.
By having an open specification, users can at least understand
the properties of the technology that is documented openly.

Just to be crystal clear, I do support publishing draft-housley-*
as either Informational RFC or Experimental RFC.

Yours,

Ran
rja at extremenetworks.com


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf